What does "The final analytic is nothingness" mean? I don't understand what you are trying to say with this statement. I am trying to understand your statement. Do you understand what I am saying? What do I need to do to make myself clearer?

shel wrote:Emptiness, Mr. gregkavarnos, emptiness. You do know what that is I trust. Even if you believe it's all theoretical.

Shel, Buddhist philosophy through the ages has taken great pains to distinguish sunyata from "nothingness".

How does that clarify Gregkavarnos's apparent cluelessness?

Shel, he was confused by your statement "the final analytic is nothingness" which really is nonsensical, and my above statement should help you clarify why. If you meant to refer to emptiness, then "nothingness" is not a proper synonym.

Contentment is the ultimate wealth;Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha

Adamantine wrote:Shel, Buddhist philosophy through the ages has taken great pains to distinguish sunyata from "nothingness".

As Robert Thurman puts it "there's no such thing as nothing". It's a fantasy.

Johnny Dangerous wrote:Emptiness is actually everything, and has no beginning, end, center etc. it's not nothingness or the opposite of existence.

In my experience, nothingness seems a good label for the fantasy/nightmare projected by ego as a perspective in which to hide -either permanently (c.f. 'desire for non-existence') or temporarily (if 'somethingness' is still the ideal)- when its maintenance becomes problematic. This concept of an impermeable 'fuzziness' that excludes everything -perhaps triggered by the delusion that one is fundamentally conscious of nothing but being conscious- is logicaly opposed to the emptiness that 'permeates' and includes everything: If there are no inherent identities or substances making up 'things', then both the 'things' and their absence are empty and there is therefore no backdrop that might otherwise override the 'things' in an ontological sense. This means there's no ultimate way of distinguishing a 'subjective' from an 'objective'.

This might all be off-topic if not for the confusion typically generated in beginners by the mahayana emphasis on emptiness that's rightly apparent on Dharmawheel. When understood, emptiness brings you down to earth, and -I'm told- this intellectual understanding is merely the beginning _ _

"Removing the barrier between this and that is the only solution" {Chogyam Trungpa - "The Lion's Roar"}

It seems reasonable to say that "nothingness is at least a concept. Emptiness in Buddhist terms on the other hand (right or left your choice) refers to the fact that nothing is existent on it's own , you can't break something down to a final something that is a unique "it". Reality tho is all around us. No?GasshoLawrence

"Even if you practice only for an hour a day with faith and inspiration, good qualities will steadily increase. Regular practice makes it easy to transform your mind. From seeing only relative truth, you will eventually reach a profound certainty in the meaning of absolute truth."Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche.

"Even if you practice only for an hour a day with faith and inspiration, good qualities will steadily increase. Regular practice makes it easy to transform your mind. From seeing only relative truth, you will eventually reach a profound certainty in the meaning of absolute truth."Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche.

I've never liked the term No-thingness because it seemingly implies a lack of things, and emptiness isn't lack or abundance, multiplicity or singularity of stuff, its just the mode of how things are. Then again, the term emptiness seems to get misinterpreted as some sort of nihilistic lack of existence by many non-Buddhists, and perhaps even some Buddhists. So..words fail.

May the eyes of living beings be gladdened by skies made splendid by clouds that lightnings garland, while on earth below, the peacocks dance with joy as showers of rain, falling gently, approach.